Equality Bill [HL]

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 4:30 pm on 19 October 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor 4:30, 19 October 2005

My Lords, diffidently but I hope authoritatively, I shall say that I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I shall put the same point in a slightly different way. The commission is plainly susceptible to judicial review. The three basic principles on which it could be judicially reviewed are: first, if it exercised a power that it did not have under the Bill, because it can do only what the Bill allows it to do; secondly, if it does not act Wednesbury-reasonably, which means that it has to act either reasonably or rationally within the meaning of the well known line of decided cases; and thirdly, if it does not act fairly. The existence of what is now called a general duty rather than a fundamental duty does not detract at all from those principles. I very much hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, in relation to her concerns. Like everybody else in the House, I would be extremely keen to make it clear that this body is susceptible to judicial oversight, and that Clause 3 is not intended in any way to dilute or reduce such oversight.

I thank noble Lords who supported the amendments. I cannot deal in detail with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, save to say that I join him in astonishment that six bodies could discuss whether grace should be said before meals at a homelessness establishment, and that eating together is not to be encouraged. I join him in saying that, although it is right that government bodies give grants, it is equally right that those institutions run themselves; that is presumably why they are there. I do not think that the noble Earl is suggesting anything to the contrary, but I should make it clear that the types of interventions that he describes would not be either the function or the purpose of the body such as the commission that we are setting up. I shall look into the particular examples he gave. I give no guarantee of providing any satisfaction, but they certainly seem to be issues that should be looked into. I commend the amendments to the House.